Elizabeth 1 Dies on Eve of Armada, Who succeeds?

WI Queen Elizabeth dies suddenly (accident illness or assassination – take your pick) as the Armada is approaching the Lizard, Who takes her place?

In order of hereditary right the possibles seem to be as follows.

1-James VI of Scotland. He was the one who got it OTL, but if he accepts it right now he is inheriting an all-out war with Spain. Would he risk that?

2 -Lady Arbella Stuart. She is the gt-grandchild of Margaret Tudor’s second marriage, but is only about 13 years old – perhaps not ideal at such a time of crisis. Also Henry VIII’s will (enacted into law by Parliament) passes over all Margaret’s descendants in favour of those of her sister Mary

3 - Edward Seymour, son of Lady Catherine Grey, and his brother Thomas. Both in their 20s, but as their parents could not prove they were married (it was done in secret and the clergyman who did it had made himself scarce) they were legally bastards.

Possibly, with Elizabeth dead the clergyman might have surfaced, but equally he might have been scared to get caught up in a succession dispute. OTL he only came forward after James had been on the throne several years so that all succession issues were dead.

4 - Margaret Stanley, daughter of Catherine’s aunt, Eleanor Brandon. Not disqualified, but in disgrace and forbidden the Court, and iirc separated from her husband.

5 - Ferdinando Stanley – son of MS and later Earl of Derby. Aged abt 29, but his family were seen as Catholic sympathisers (though outwardly conforming) and having a Spanish name won’t have exactly reassured anyone. OTOH, if the Council thinks that England is headed for defeat and should be dickering for the most lenient peace terms, he would probably be the best choice for that.

Thoughts anyone?
 
5 - Ferdinando Stanley – son of MS and later Earl of Derby. Aged abt 29, but his family were seen as Catholic sympathisers (though outwardly conforming) and having a Spanish name won’t have exactly reassured anyone. OTOH, if the Council thinks that England is headed for defeat and should be dickering for the most lenient peace terms, he would probably be the best choice for that.
This derived from the Will of Henry VIII, due his mother’s (Lady Margaret Clifford) inheritance. But Lady Margaret was alive in 1589, so she would be the monarch, not her son.
 
Still James VI I think. Given the timing, he is probably going to know that the Armada was defeated before he has to accept. (I think the Armada still gets defeated). And even if not, England is worth a war with Spain.
 
Still James VI I think. Given the timing, he is probably going to know that the Armada was defeated before he has to accept. (I think the Armada still gets defeated). And even if not, England is worth a war with Spain.

If so, what happens to those implicated in the death of his mother?

OTL the principal ones were dead by the time he succeeded, but TTL they are stull very much alive - for the moment.
 
Hm, resistance would be interesting but who realistically poses a strong enough threat?
James was a pragmatist. He barely knew his mother as she was imprisoned in Loch Leven castle when he was barely one. He would have taken some action for the sake of appearances but would blame Elizabeth rather than the prime movers such as Cecil or Walsingham. As Elizabeth always blamed her secretary. William Davison, he might end up taking the fall for the rest of the court.
 
Should not Henry Hastings, 5th Earl of Huntingdon be a candidate if no other can be found or are too catholic?

Edit: Sorry, this is of course 1588, not 1603, which means it should be his great uncle, Henry Hastings 3rd Earl of Huntingdon.
 
James was a pragmatist. He barely knew his mother as she was imprisoned in Loch Leven castle when he was barely one. He would have taken some action for the sake of appearances but would blame Elizabeth rather than the prime movers such as Cecil or Walsingham. As Elizabeth always blamed her secretary. William Davison, he might end up taking the fall for the rest of the court.

But could Cecil or Walsingham have *relied* on his doing so? Did he owe them anything in particular? Even if they supported his accession, historically "kingmakers" have had a poor track record when it comes to staying friends with the kings they have made.

And if James is as eager for an early peace with Spain as he was to be OTL, beheading the killers of MQoS would be an obvious opening gambit. It would also have been popular back in Scotland.
 
James VI - little chance of anyone else at this point - he offers the English Council the best option - morally he is the Queen's senior heir general, he is also legitimate, male and of age, Protestant and already a sovereign. He is also unmarried which gives the opportunity for an anti-Spanish match to shore up a strong ally, or if necessary a pro-Spanish match to gain peace.
As to revenge on his mother's killers well he did little for her when she was alive so I doubt he will aim for revenge - though I expect those most involved in her execution might find it pertinent to stay away from court - he will need the real architects of her downfall on the council to shore up his reign and his claim.
Walsingham's health was poor by this point (he would die in 1590).

All the others have serious weaknesses - legally the heir was Margaret, Countess of Derby who was in disgrace, estranged from her husband and in financial trouble hardly likely to garner support and her son's weren't a brilliant alternative and there's the issue of Ferdinando's assumed Catholicism (although its very debatable that he was one) (However, his father the Earl of Derby might push him forward - given that he himself took an active role in Mary's trial and might have been wary of her son's accession).
The Seymour brother's are non-starters - legally they are illegitimate and the elder had only just upset his father by his own secret marriage which was hardly going to endear him to the council.
Lady Arbella Stuart - she's junior in line to James VI - although legitimate and Protestant she s also a minor - unlike most of the others she's exceptionally well connected and her grandmother the Countess of Shrewsbury might will contemplate pushing her forward as the true claimant.
 
James VI - little chance of anyone else at this point - he offers the English Council the best option - morally he is the Queen's senior heir general, he is also legitimate, male and of age, Protestant and already a sovereign. He is also unmarried which gives the opportunity for an anti-Spanish match to shore up a strong ally, or if necessary a pro-Spanish match to gain peace.

My guess would be the latter. The Stuarts were a snobbish lot and looked for matches with the greatest royal houses, which in this era were all Catholic.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Arabella.

England needs a monarch immediately to hand. There is no legal interregnum. Whilst a proclamation is not necessary, legally, it is surely going to be necessary to rally the troops

Don't forget, nobody is expecting that the Armada will be totally destroyed and driven off. The Spanish army is gathering to invade, and the English army gathering to defend. I certainly can't see "For King James!" being much of a rallying cry. Produce Arabella and proclaim her queen
 
Arabella I of England (b. 1575) m. 1589 James VI of Scotland (b. 1566)

1. James VII and I (b. 1592) m. Catherine of Brandenburg (b. 1602)
2. Charles (b. 1593) did not marry, rumored to be gay
3. Elizabeth (b. 1594) m. Gustavus Adolphus (b. 1594)
4. Mary (b. 1595) m. Philip IV of Spain (b. 1605) she converted to Roman Catholicism as a condition of the marriage
5. Margaret (b. 1596) did not marry, rumored to be lesbian
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Arabella I of England (b. 1575) m. 1589 James VI of Scotland (b. 1566)

1. James VII and I (b. 1592) m. Catherine of Brandenburg (b. 1602)
2. Charles (b. 1593) did not marry, rumored to be gay
3. Elizabeth (b. 1594) m. Gustavus Adolphus (b. 1594)
4. Mary (b. 1595) m. Philip IV of Spain (b. 1605) she converted to Roman Catholicism as a condition of the marriage
5. Margaret (b. 1596) did not marry, rumored to be lesbian
Think James may well be declared co
Monarch
 
Arabella I of England (b. 1575) m. 1589 James VI of Scotland (b. 1566)

1. James VII and I (b. 1592) m. Catherine of Brandenburg (b. 1602)
2. Charles (b. 1593) did not marry, rumored to be gay
3. Elizabeth (b. 1594) m. Gustavus Adolphus (b. 1594)
4. Mary (b. 1595) m. Philip IV of Spain (b. 1605) she converted to Roman Catholicism as a condition of the marriage
5. Margaret (b. 1596) did not marry, rumored to be lesbian

Think James may well be declared co
Monarch

He could. I just thought it easier to have his son be first undisputed king James of England
Looking at what happened with OTL Phillip James is likely recognised King of England jure uxoris
 
Top